Todorov & Levitt (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC1F 961 (23 December 2025)

(a) The parties' legal representatives and the Independent Children's Lawyer may inspect;

(b) The parties and their legal representatives are restrained from providing a copy of the documents produced by the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing in response to the s67ZBE Order in these proceedings or disclosing their contents to any other person without an order of the Court.

(c) The legal representatives of the parties and the Independent Children's Lawyer, including any Independent Children's Lawyer appointed after the date of this Order, ensure that any copies of material produced to the Court in response to the s67ZBE Order are destroyed or returned to the Court at the end of the appeal period following the finalisation of the proceedings.

1. The parties are restrained from issuing any further subpoena to the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing requiring the Department to provide documents or information in relation to these proceedings, except with the leave of the Court.
2. I reserve liberty to apply at short notice in relation to parenting matters.

1. In the event that a party fails to attend a hearing or defaults in the filing of documents or things required of him/her, the Court may proceed to determine the matter without any input by the non-attending or defaulting party.
2. If in any proceedings there are allegations of family violence and the provisions of section 102NA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) apply (see attached Family Violence Information Sheet), any unrepresented party will not be permitted to personally cross-examine the other party/parties.

1. Affected unrepresented parties may apply to the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme ("the Scheme") for representation but any such application must be made at least 12 weeks prior to the final hearing.

1. Further information about the legislation and the Scheme can be found at Part 4 of the attached Family Violence Information Sheet.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. The parenting aspect of this came before me as the urgent matters Judge on 24 November 2025. The children are X born in 2010 ("the daughter") and Y born in 2013 ("the son") ("collectively called "the children"). The mother is Ms Todorov (aged 55) and the father is Mr Levitt (aged 54). Ms Susan Hamilton-Green is the Independent Children's Lawyer.
2. The parties had a hearing of 22 days before Wilson J commencing on 18 November 2024 and concluding on 18 March 2025.
3. The background to the matter has been summarised in Wilson J's reasons for which the citation is Todorov & Levitt [2025] FedCFamC1F 383 and I have had read and have regard in hearing the competing applications today. His Honour made findings that the mother was an unacceptable risk to the children and ordered that the children be placed in the care of their father. Following a moratorium period of 16 weeks, the children were to begin seeing their mother on a supervised basis in late November 2025.
4. X had not spoken to the father since 14 December 2023 when she absconded from his care and Y had not spent time with the father since March 2024. It was alleged that in early 2024, Y had broken a window in an attempt to escape the father.
5. It is apparent from his Honour's reasons that his Honour was not and could not be have been aware of the following:
   • That X would become a missing person and remain missing for over 100 days; and
   • That the children X and Y would be separated.
6. It is convenient to start with the events following judgment delivery on 7 August 2025.
7. The children were to be collected by the father on 7 August 2025 at Court Children's Services following judgment delivery and an explanation to the children of his Honour's reasons. This did not occur. The children refused to enter the Court building. Court Children's Services subsequently were not able to facilitate the handover. As a result, a recovery order was issued, also on 7 August 2025, for the purpose of recovering the children and delivering them to the father (being the person with whom they would live). The children were recovered on that date and placed in the care of the father. The children subsequently absconded from the father's residence and travelled to the maternal grandfather's residence on 8 August 2025. The maternal grandfather alerted the police, and the children were returned to the father. The children then presented to a police station on 10 August 2025 and made a report of abuse in the father's home with respect to Y. The complaint seems not to have been actioned. The children were returned to the father. On 11 August 2025, X absconded again and was later returned to the father's care by police. There was an urgent mention hearing before Wilson J on this date, but no orders were made. On 13 August 2025, X left the father's care again and travelled to a maternal aunt's house. She left that house after the Aunt called the police. X was recovered on 18 August 2025 at the mother's house in Suburb AJ. X absconded again on 19 August 2025 and was recovered on 29 August 2025. Both children absconded from the father's home on 29 August 2025. On 2 September 2025, they attended the maternal grandfather's house again and he again notified police who returned them to the father's care.
8. On 3 September 2025, X absconded from the father's care a final time. She remains missing. The last known sighting of X was on 23 September 2025 - 3 months ago today.
9. The father filed an application on 21 November 2025 to vary final orders made by Justice Wilson on 7 August 2025. The father originally sought that the moratorium ordered by Justice Wilson be extended to 16 consecutive weeks of both children being in his care, provided that both children attend upon his appointed therapist, Ms AK. The 16-week moratorium envisaged by the 7 August 2025 orders expired on 27 November 2025. Y has not spoken to his mother since August 2025. Y has not seen X since 3 September 2025.
10. To say I am concerned about X is an understatement. It is staggering that neither the mother or the father sought to involve the Court in X's disappearance in the period between 3 September 2025 and 21 November 2025.

1. This matter came into my list on an urgent basis on 24 November 2025 and was listed for mention that day. At that mention, I made Orders, inter alia, that the children attend Child Court Services for a Specific Issues Report and suspended the recovery order for 12 hours before and 24 hours after any assessment or appointment for the report such that X could have every confidence she would not be taken into custody if she attended for assessment. I made orders that neither parent could attend within 100m of the Registry at the time of the assessment.
2. On 9 December 2025 I made a s67ZBE Order and requested the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing provide the report by 17 December 2025. The report was provided late in the evening on 17 December 2025.
3. I listed the father's application for interim defended hearing for today, 18 December 2025, following the release of the Specific Issues Report.

1. At the interim defended hearing, the parents and Independent Children's Lawyer were represented by their trial Counsel, the father by Mr Potter, the mother by Mr Werner and the ICL by Mr Baume. It was a fully attended trial.
2. At the hearing, the father initially sought Orders in the terms of his Application filed 21 November 2025 but his position moved to a suspension of paragraphs 4, 13 and 18 to 19 of the 7 August 2025 final orders as regards X, and that X live with her cousin Mr AC.
3. The mother sought that paragraphs 2 to 24 of the parenting orders of 7 August 2025 be suspended insofar as they apply to X, that the recovery order of 7 August 2025 and extended on 19 November 2025 also be suspended, that X live with her maternal grandfather or, if she wishes, with Mr AC, that she contact/spend time with her parents according to her wishes provided that her time with her mother is supervised by the paternal grandfather and that there be immediate electronic communication facilitated between X and Y. The mother seeks a s91B order which is a request for DFFH to intervene in the proceedings.
4. The ICL's position was broadly in line with the mother's except that only paragraphs 2, 4, 13 and 19 of the 7 August 2025 be suspended with respect to X and paragraph 18 be suspended all together. The ICL sought that X live with the Maternal Grandfather Mr AB Todorov on the basis that the mother is not residing at the Maternal Grandfather's home. The ICL also seeks a s91B order.
5. Before discussing the merits of the parties' positions it is convenient to summarise the reports received and the oral evidence given in Court at the hearing before me.

1. Ms AV is a Senior Court Child Expert in the employ of the Courts. She met with Y on 5 December 2025. X did not make herself available to be interviewed, however Ms AV has expressed that if X does want to speak to Ms AV she will make herself available. Ms AV's Specific Issues Report was published and released to the parties on 12 December 2025.
2. Ms AV records that Y is a delightful child who was easily engaged in interview. She reports that:

[4]. [...] Whilst remaining polite and cooperative throughout, he expressed frustration that litigation was continuing and he was having to discuss his family situation once again, and that his care arrangements were not settled. [Y] is very much looking forward to a time in which his family is no longer involved with Court.

21. [Y] remain living with his father and commence spending professionally supervised time with his mother as soon a placement becomes available (as per the 2025 Final Orders).

22. [Y] not to be engaged in further therapy until either he requests it, or his mental health presentation significantly deteriorates, indicating it is warranted.

23. All efforts are made to locate [X]. If [X] cannot be located by her family, a report be made to Child Protection regarding [X] engaging in high-risk behaviour including absconding from known placements and supports.

24. Mr [Levitt] and Ms [Todorov] to make enquiries in their extended kith/kin network for an alternate suitable placement for [X], once she is located.

25. Mr [Levitt] and Ms [Todorov] both engage in individual therapeutic support with the goal of building their capacity to shield the children from their feelings about each other and support the children's relationship with both parents.

1. Ms AV's report paints a picture of Y as a child who is coping moderately well with the situation in which he has found himself given it was entirely outside of his control and against his express and communicated wishes. Y is attending school and has a routine. He is worried about, and misses, his sister. Living with his father "is not as bad" as he thought it would be. Ms AV reports that:

6. [Y] described his feeling about living with his father as "mid", shrugging his shoulders and waggling his outstretched hand, rating it around "about 4 out of 10" (0 being terrible and 10 being fantastic). He likes his father's house, explaining it is close to his school and "my stuff is there now" but noted somewhat ruefully the house was soon to be sold as part of the financial settlement between his parents. [Y] explained his father's house is very large, but it is just him and his father living there. His father's partner "[Ms AL]" visits regularly with her youngest daughter [AM] (aged 13, unsure of spelling), but they live elsewhere. He likes [Ms AL] "she's really nice" and gets on well with [AM]. [Y] indicated his relationship with his father as "mid" and "okay" (waggling his hand again) but noted that his father probably thought they were getting on extremely well. [Y] explained that he and his father don't fight, which is good, but neither do they do much together. Sometimes his father takes him to the park and occasionally they play tennis, which he enjoys. [Y] noted that he was unlikely to approach his father if he was worried or upset. He noted that whilst he could speak with [Ms AL] he wouldn't, initially stating "you know why" and then confirming that he was concerned that this might upset his mother. [Y] assured that he has lots of people he could talk to if he was worried, being his school friends, and a counsellor at the school, but noted "to tell the truth, I probably won't".

7. [Y] indicated to take the rating of living with his father from a 4 to a 6, would involve being able to spend time with his mother and sister "I would be okay living with Dad if I could see Mum". However, [Y] demonstrated ambiguity in his commentary about spending time with his mother. [Y] noted that whilst he loves his mother and is missing her, it was "a bit easier" when he is only having contact with one parent. [Y] explained he has felt pulled apart by his parents (demonstrating with an elastic fidget toy, pulling it to its' full extension) and expressing somewhat angrily that whilst his parents "hate each other", he loves them both and is tired of feeling caught between them. This was discussed at some length, during which [Y] commented that both his parents tended to pretend his life with the other parent didn't exist, leaving him feeling like he was split in half. He is anxious about this feeling returning when he starts to see his mother again, noting it made his stomach hurt.

1. As to Y's reference to "mid", I understand this to be youth slang to describe something as mediocre or of a disappointing quality, falling short of expectations.[1]
2. Overall, however, Ms AV reports that it is positive that Y is no longer making allegations of abuse by his father in his care. Ms AV reports that whilst not enthusiastic about living with his father, Y appears accepting of it, including reporting an expectation that he will remain living with his father. Ms AV reports a concern that "there is a risk of [Y] developing a resist-refuse dynamic towards his mother and sister. In such circumstances therapeutic support is often recommended however [Y] is presenting as therapy fatigued."
3. Ms AV emphasises that it is important that both parents themselves engage in therapy.

20. [...] Unless both parents engage in significant behavioural and attitudinal change towards each other and give [Y] and [X] both tacit and overt approval to enjoy their relationship with the other parent, both children remain at risk of ongoing and future emotional harm. The only people who can effect this change are the parents. Given this, it is strongly recommended that rather than giving the responsibility of further therapeutic engagement and attitudinal change to [X] and [Y] to address the consequences of their parents' dysfunctional co-parenting dynamic, this responsibility should sit with Mr [Levitt] and Ms [Todorov]. It is therefore recommended that both parties engage with their own mental health supports with the therapeutic goal of shielding their children from further parental conflict and build their capacity to communicate to both [X] and [Y] that they have permission pursue and enjoy their relationship with the other parent without pressure of a loyalty bind.

1. Ms AV reiterated this in Court when giving oral evidence and confirmed her view that the parents not be permitted to pathologise the children as opposed to seeking treatment themselves.
2. When asked about Y in Court, Ms AV told the Court that he is very worried about X. She said that Y loves X dearly, is missing her and is fretting for her. Ms AV commented that the two children are likely experiencing a high level of interdependence. She agreed that Y likely looks to his sister to rely upon more than either of his parents.
3. As to the amount of time Y and X should spend together, Ms AV commented that it should be several times a week, not in the home of the father.
4. Ms AV commented that she would not preclude an appropriate home on the basis that the caregiver cannot drive.
5. Ms AV restated her opinion, when challenged by the ICL, that Y should not be forced to see a therapist at this stage, unless he asks for it or his mental health declines, as her sense from him was that he would like a break from talking about his experiences. Ms AV commented that it was unreasonable to expect children to constantly do therapy in order to manage their parents. She stated that the children need to be left alone. They have said clearly what they want and, to date, they have not been heard.
6. Ms AV is an experienced and considered expert and I place weight on her evidence.

S67ZBE Report

1. The s67ZBE Response provided to Chambers on 17 December 2025 covers the period 9 February 2024 to present. I will summarise only those Investigation reports that occurred after the delivery of Judgment on 7 August 2025 (being reports 19 and 20 on the DFFH file). I have read the entirety of the s67ZBE Response.

19. 7 August 2025 to 15 September 2025 (Investigation and Assessment)

1. This report on 7 August 2025 (the day of final judgment delivery) arose in relation to the children's safety in the care of the father, with the report being concerned that Y's behaviour had deteriorated and was wanting to do 'whatever it took' to leave the father's care. There was a further report on 8 August 2025 that X had gone missing from school. Further reports were received between 10 and 20 August 2025. Child Protection attended the children's schools on 21 August 2025.
2. The case progressed to Investigation and Assessment on 28 August 2025 with respect to X who remained missing. The case in respect to Y was closed noting that Y had been settling into the father's care.
3. On 29 August 2025, Child Protection interviewed the father. During the interview, X was returned to the home by Police. She disclosed to Child Protection that she did not intend to reside with the father and did not feel safe with him. She disclosed that she had been going to "twenty four hour places" with no further information disclosed. She further disclosed:

[X] stated that she did not know what Mr [Levitt] would do to her, and that he had never physically harmed her. However, [X] advised that [Y] had told her that Mr [Levitt] would 'hit' him when he was younger, and that he had overheard Mr [Levitt] saying that he would kill them both (timeframe unknown). [X] further stated that when she was approximately eight years old, Mr [Levitt] showered with her which she felt was inappropriate. It was noted that this had previously been known to Child Protection and the Victoria Police Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Investigation Team, with no further action taken. [X] stated that she wished Mr [Levitt] would respect her wishes not to reside in his care and continued to advise that she had no intention of residing with him, and that she would seek to leave the home as this would demonstrate her wishes to the court. [X] stated that she wished she could reside with Ms [Todorov] and [Y] and have no contact with Mr [Levitt].

1. I take "twenty-four-hour places" to mean commercial venues which open for 24 hours a day. However, I agree it could also be a house or living space where the person in charge specifies that X can only remain there for 24 hours.
2. When speaking to the DFFH worker that day, the father is reported to say X had made false allegations and that he had never physically disciplined, harmed or threatened to kill the children (or either of them) at any time. During this discussion, Y and X left father's the home together.

20. 7 November 2025 to current (Investigation and Assessment)

1. On 7 November 2025 a further report was received relating to emotional and physical abuse of the children in the father's household. On 24 November 2025, concerns were raised in the context of a Notice of Child Abuse filed by the father in these proceedings. The father alleges that the mother or her family were harbouring X.
2. Police advised Child Protection in November 2025 that X had been recorded as a missing person on six occasions since August 2025, most recently since 3 September 2025.
3. The case progressed with DFFH to Investigation and Assessment in December 2025.
4. On 5 December 2025, Senior Child Protection practitioner AH met with the maternal grandfather, Mr AB Todorov at his residence in Suburb AN. Ms AH made the following observations about Mr AB Todorov and his home:
   • The maternal grandfather's aged care support worker was present during the visit.
   • Police have visited Mr AB Todorov and his sister Ms AO for information as to X's whereabouts;
   • X visited Mr AB Todorov's home briefly after a family court hearing in August and he has had no contact from X since.
   • Mr AB Todorov informed Police when X and Y visited in August, leading to their return to their father's address on two occasions.
   • Mr AB Todorov expressed sadness and anxiety about his grandchildren's safety.
   • Mr AB Todorov is willing to support X if she wishes to live with him; his daughter lived with him in 2023 after becoming homeless as a consequence of an Intervention Order obtained by the father.
   • Mr AB Todorov's home was assessed as safe, secure, clean, spacious, and suitable for X; no pets, and he is a non-smoker.
   • Criminal Records Check on 11 December 2025 returned no disclosable outcomes.
5. Ms AH also met with the mother at her address on 5 December 2025.
6. Ms AH met with Y at his school in December 2025. Ms AH was informed that that:
   • Y has many big feelings about not knowing where his sister X is and has fears because of the unknown. Y feels sad about the current situation and when he is sad, he withdraws, isolates himself in his room.
   • When Y is at home, he is mostly alone in his room. Y does not do much with his father because he works. Y has resorted to not ask for anything other than what is being provided.
   • Y is confused about his care arrangements and said that he does not really know what is going on.
   • Y affirmed that prior to August 2025, his father used to hit him. When questioned further Y mentioned that his father would hit him with his hands at random times and indiscriminately; "I got hit by him at random times." Y said that there were no warning or triggers beforehand. Y said that the last time it occurred is between the age of 11 and 12. Y disclosed that his father hit him this year but has hit him less since being in his sole care. The father's actions caused him to be scared, sad, fearful and confused.
   • Y told Ms AH that his father locks him in the bathroom, between the ages of 11 and 12. When Y is locked in the bathroom it is dark, and he cannot recall for how long he is confined. Y said that this occurred after he tried to escape.
   • Y's favourite time of the year is Christmas because he gets to decorate the house, decorate the Christmas tree and offer presents. Y has not asked for a Christmas present and said that his father has not asked for his wish list.
   • Y reports feeling sad because he does not see his mother and X. Y misses his mother's cuddles of reassurance and her "fantastic cooking". Y misses X as they are close and provide comfort to one another.
   • If Y was worried, he would speak with his mother, X, uncles Mr AP and Mr AQ as well as his 'papa' (Mr AB Todorov) and great aunt, Ms AO.
7. I extract the recommendations of Child Protection in full for completeness (emphasis added):

[Y] reported shutting down when feeling sad and overcome by not seeing his mother and sister, and more so not knowing if [X] is well and safe. [Y] is only 12 years old, and the impact of the accrued cumulative harm will likely have detrimental outcomes for him moving into teenagerhood. [Y] is a neurodivergent child who should have the same opportunities as any child of his age to thrive and achieve his best potential; however, he is at a higher risk of trauma due to sensory overload, being socially misunderstood which might lead to severe outcomes.

Child Protection is of the opinion that final orders in this matter should take into consideration the impact that a 'no contact order for a parent' can have on children who have experienced cumulative harm and how this could lead to more instability and hardship to [X] and [Y].

[Y] has been missing for more than 100 days and despite the police having had the case transferred to the Criminal Investigation Unit, she continues to remain unseen, unheard and is likely placing herself at significant risk of harm.

It would be in the children's best interest to consider their views are reflected when it comes to their contact with their respective parents. Child Protection do not believe that [X] and [Y's] views and wishes were considered as per child protection files and records. Since [X] and [Y] are articulate children who can narrate their feelings, fears and experiences accurately, they should be afforded the opportunity for their voice to be represented throughout.

Child Protection are concerned about the lasting impact to [X] and [Y's] physical, cognitive and emotional development and wellbeing if the situation perdure.

Child Protection would be favourable for Ms [Todorov] to resume progressive care of her children. Child Protection assess Mr [AB Todorov] as suitable, able and capable to care for [X] if this is her wish.

Child Protection do not assess that [X] and [Y] were placed at an unacceptable risk of harm in their mother's care.

Child Protection would recommend Mr [Levitt] seeks support from Caring Dads or similar programs to help strengthen his parenting skills and understand how physical and emotional harm have lasting impacts on children.

Child Protection recommend Ms [Todorov] continues to seek support from a trauma-informed therapist to build resilience and support her to implement healthy boundaries.

Child Protection further recommend [X] and [Y] are supported with therapeutic treatment such as AR Support Service.

Reception by the parties and oral evidence of Ms AH

1. The s67ZBE Response was sent to the Independent Children's Lawyer early on the morning of the hearing. By agreement, it was sent to the practitioners for the parties once the hearing had commenced under direction not to provide a copy to their clients. The matter was stood down to allow the practitioners to obtain instructions.
2. Ms AH, the author of the report, was available to give oral evidence. She confirmed that she was not aware of any family violence allegations against the maternal grandfather and had checked the DFFH and Police system, but there were no results. Counsel for the father asked if the allegations concerned her, and Ms AH replied that she was not particularly concerned as they would be historical allegations. Ms AH also checked the system for the father's nominated carer, Mr AC, and likewise found no results.
3. In oral evidence, Ms AH maintained that it is Child Protection's view that the father is a perpetrator of family violence. She was challenged on this point by Mr Potter, who submitted that the report contained "unqualified opinion" and that "bias oozes out of [the report]".
4. When questioned by the Independent Children's Lawyer, Ms AH stated that she had met the maternal grandfather once, for about 2 hours, was aware that he was receiving support from Aged Care, and was of the view that he could cook and appropriately look after [X] if she required it. She understood he could not drive and had carers who took him to appointments.
5. Ms AH was an impressive witness. The s67ZBE Report prepared by her was very comprehensive despite the short deadline. I accept her evidence.

1. Detective Senior Constable AG ("DSC [AG]") is the lead investigator from AS Crime Investigation Unit. He has been working on the investigation of X's disappearance since 3 October.
2. DSC AG gave evidence that he has no information as to X's current whereabouts, that she was last sighted on 23 September 2025 via CCTV at a train station in Suburb AJ. DSC AG told the Court his investigation was going in circles and that he has exhausted every avenue with respect to the family members. He cannot confirm that she is with a family member or close family friend and nor does he think it is likely that she is with a family member or friend.
3. DSC AG gave evidence that X had used a phone registered to the maternal grandfather and had called two phone numbers when using that phone on 23 September 2025, namely calls to Ms AD (a friend of the mothers) and a Mr AT (a friend of Ms AD).
4. DSC AG's evidence was that the risk to X at the moment is very high and agreed that it could be lethal.
5. DSC AG noted that the maternal grandfather, in his interactions with him, would be a suitable person for X to live with, noting that the maternal grandfather did report the children to police twice when under an obligation to do so. DSC AG was unable to identify anyone in the family or larger friendship group who is in a superior position to the maternal grandfather.
6. DSC AG was an open and helpful witness whose evidence I accept.

1. Mr AC is X and Y's first cousin once removed. He is aged 45 and his wife is 41. He is the son of their Great-Aunt Ms AO, who is the sister of Mr AB Todorov (the maternal grandfather). Mr AC and his wife have two children, aged 6 and 10. They live in Suburb AU, approximately a 30 minute drive from Suburb AN, where the maternal grandfather lives or Suburb D, where the father lives.
2. Mr AC gave evidence that he last saw X around December 2022 or 2023 at a family event. He says he hasn't spoken to X in about two years. He came to Court following a phone call from the father at around 11am on the day of hearing asking if he could provide short-term accommodation for X. Mr AC said he and his wife were prepared to accommodate X for the school holidays, but that they weren't sure if they could get her to school once the new year starts.
3. As to her accommodation, Mr AC says he would convert his study for X to have her own room and would work in the balance of the house, but this would be at a time when his own children would be home from school. He confirmed he was happy to facilitate time between X and Y in his home for the duration of the school holidays or part thereof.
4. Mr AC stated he had a reasonable relationship with the maternal grandfather (his uncle) and that his mother, Ms AO, spends a regular amount of time at his home assisting with care of his children.
5. Mr AC gave evidence that his mother, Ms AO, and the mother are quite close and that the mother lived with his parents for a few days.
6. Overall, I was impressed with Mr AC. I think that Mr AC may be overestimating the extent to which his family could accommodate X for all of the summer vacation. I accept that he wants to but he has two young children and I suspect that accommodating the needs of X, who is of independent thought and deed, may be more onerous than he expects.

1. Mr AB Todorov is the maternal grandfather. He is aged 82 and is a retired professional. He had a heart attack after Ms Todorov was evicted from the family home in 2023 and had a stroke the following year. Otherwise, he says he is in good health and uses a walking stick to keep himself safe.
2. The children have lived with him previously and absconded to his home twice since the 7 August 2025 orders. On both occasions, he delivered the children to the Police. Victoria Police view him as the most appropriate maternal family member for X to be placed with on the basis of his co-operation with police in the search for X.
3. The maternal grandfather was interviewed by DFFH and his home assessed as an appropriate place for X to live (see above [40]).
4. The Independent Children's Lawyer initially held concerns about the status of the grandfather despite the s67ZBE response. Counsel for the father also opposed the maternal grandfather being an appropriate residence for X on the basis that, Counsel submits, the mother's evidence during the trial was that she was subject to significant family violence herself as a child perpetrated by the maternal grandfather.[2] The father referred to the wife's statement she had been abused by her father as well as by the father. Mr Potter confirmed that the husband does not accept the mother's evidence that he has assaulted her. However, the father is prepared to accept and indeed rely upon the mother's evidence that she had been assaulted by her own father.
5. Counsel for the father also objected on the basis that the maternal grandfather "has carers" and that X "shouldn't have to look after herself and him as well".
6. Counsel for both the Independent Children's Lawyer and the father had the opportunity to cross-examine Mr AB Todorov.
7. Mr AB Todorov gave evidence that he can manage everything in his home on his own, and that he has support workers that assist with cooking and cleaning. He says the support worker can also cook for X, and that this arrangement was in place when the children temporarily lived with him.
8. Counsel for the mother asked the maternal grandfather about the times the children had absconded to his house. He said he 'did my duty'. He said he asked the police if the children would be safe if they took the children from him. He said the police gave him their word the children would be safe. He said he heard two days later they had been placed with their father and had absconded again. He was concerned that X might no longer trust him but that he is fond of her and would keep her happy. He understood that there would be no obligation to call the police and have X recovered to her father.
9. Mr AB Todorov gave evidence that he does not often travel to Ms AO or Mr AC house, but says that when he visits Ms AO he visits Mr AC.
10. Mr AB Todorov denied giving X a phone recently but stated he did give her his old phone a long time ago.
11. Mr AB Todorov confirmed he would not physically be able to stop X if she decided to run away. Notably, it appears to be common ground that Mr AC would not be able to stop X either.
12. Mr AB Todorov is a man of small stature. He was a considered and apparently honest witness. He had a pleasant disposition and gave his evidence politely. He impressed me favourably and I accept his evidence.

1. This is an interim decision. I set out the law below. Section 69ZL permits me to set out my reasons in short form. I thus far have identified the competing proposals of the parties, the issues in dispute, and the contested facts.[3]
2. Parenting proceedings are regulated by Part VII of the Act as amended. Section 43 of the Act requires the Court to have regard to several matters including:

(c) The need to protect the rights of children and to promote their welfare; and

(ca) The need to ensure protection from family violence.

1. Section 60B of the Act defines the objects of Part VII as to "ensure that the best interests of the children are met" including by ensuring their safety, and to give effect to the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989 (UNCROC). The four core principles of the Convention are:
   • non-discrimination;
   • devotion to the best interest of the child;
   • the right to life, survival and the child's full development - physically, spiritually, morally and socially; and
   • respect for the views of the child - that children have a right to have their say in decisions which affect them and to have their opinions taken into account and have a right to participate fully in family, cultural and social life.
2. A 'parenting order' is defined in s 64B of the Act and may deal with matters including:

(a) The person or persons with whom a child is to live;

(b) The time a child is to spend with another person or other persons;

(c) The allocation of parental responsibility; and

(d) The communication a child is to have with another person or persons.

1. Section 65D of the Act provides that the Court can make such parenting orders as it thinks is proper. In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order, the Court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration (s 60CA). The Court may make a parenting order that discharges, varies, suspends or revises some or all of an earlier parenting order (s65D(2)).
2. In determining what is in the child's best interests, s 60CC(2) sets out the matters that are required to be considered. No one matter takes priority over the other. The matters to be considered are:

60CC How a court determines what is in a child's best interests

...

General considerations

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the court must consider the following matters:

(a) what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:

(i) the child; and

(ii) each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);

(b) any views expressed by the child;

(c) the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;

(d) the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child's developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;

(e) the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child's parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so;

(f) anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.

1. In considering the matters in s 60CC(2)(a), the Court must, pursuant to s 60CC(2A), consider any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child together with any family violence order that applies in relation to the child or a member of the child's family.

1. The bests interests of the child are the paramount consideration (s60CA). The relevant factors have to be considered for each child separately. Given their respective ages, the objectives in relation to the Convention on the Rights of the Child may have more prominence for X than for Y, but still remain important for Y.
2. In final submissions, Counsel for the father submitted that:
   • Time between X and Y is not in Y's best interests until we know what X's state of mind is. To that effect, the matter should return to Court in a few weeks, and the children should not see each other until then.
   • The s67ZBE report was "oozing" with bias against the father in stating that the father had perpetrated family violence. Counsel for the mother in final addresses before Justice Wilson conceded there was insufficient evidence to make a finding that the father poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the children. The DFFH worker should not have reached a finding of family violence in light of the judgment of Wilson J.
   • Wilson J found the mother to be an unacceptable risk to the children.
3. In final submissions, Counsel for the mother submitted that:
   • The maternal grandfather lives closer to X's school than Mr AC;
   • Mr AC was an impressive witness;
   • It was acknowledged that there is some risk to Y in reintroducing time between Y and X, but Y wants to see his sister and has made progress with his father.
4. In final submissions, Counsel for the ICL submitted that:
   • Wilson J's orders had not contemplated the two children separately, and the new orders need to take into account that they need to be reconnected as a unit.
   • The mother should not be present when Y and X see each other because the mother's time with Y remains supervised. The ICL conceded that Y could spend time with the mother and X in a professional supervision setting such as the contact due to commence on or around Christmas Day.

1. X has been missing for 111 days. She remains a missing person. The sworn evidence of her mother, maternal grandfather and cousin is that they do not know where she is. The evidence of Detective Senior Constable AG is that he suspects X is being supported by the maternal family but he has exhausted his leads. He says that he hopes that the maternal family are concealing her because she could be in life-threatening danger if the maternal family truly do not know where X is.
2. X has, throughout the proceedings with Justice Wilson, expressed clear views that she does not want to live with, or see, her father. At the time of judgment delivery she had not spoken to her father for over two years. he says she is scared of her father. She has missed upwards of 3 months of school this year alone. X is a vulnerable child, with an extreme history of mental illness including self-harm. Ms AV, in her report, states as follows:
   1. [...] It appears that unless [X] feels a level of control and choice over her living arrangements, increasingly draconian strategies will be required to enforce the current Order that she live with her father. Such strategies are unlikely to contribute to an environment in which [X] is willing to engage in any therapeutic process to rebuild her relationship with her father, whom she currently holds responsible for her difficulties.
3. It is necessary to discharge the Order that X live with her father. The current position, that if X is found she be recovered to her father's residence, has resulted in no less than 7 attempts at escape. The recovery order to her father discourages X from coming forward and seeking help from family members or authority figures in the community. She feels she cannot 'save' or even reach out to her brother. It is an intolerable position for any child to be in, it is also intolerable for Y.
4. I am satisfied upon hearing from both the maternal grandfather and Mr AC that they are people who are capable of caring for a 15-year-old, that they care for X, and that they will do what is asked of them by the Court, Police or the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing. Importantly, each say that they will co-operate with the other, which is refreshing in light of the fact that the children have experienced no co-operation between their parents.
5. I have regard to the matters set out in s60CC of the Act. X's safety will be promoted by being found and placed in an environment which she considers to be fair and respectful of her autonomy. Her safety will not be promoted by being arbitrarily or forcibly placed in an environment which she does not perceive to be of her choice. X has strong views and has evidenced the inclination and ability to act on those views. X is 15 years old. The Court does not know how she has been living and existing in the last three months, however those experiences will have shaped her abilities and her vulnerabilities. I would be reluctant to eschew the views and preferences of a 15 year-old child, and, even more so, a child in the position of X.
6. On an interim basis, I assess the father as having no capacity to care for X in respect of long-term decisions or day-to-day decisions. Principally, this is because she is opposed to him having any authority over her. Likewise, the mother is likely to be an ineffective parent for different reasons. The difference between the two is that X wants to be with her mother. I assess the maternal grandfather and Mr AC as having reasonable capacity to care for X in the short-term providing she wants to be with them. It would not only be of benefit to X to be able to have a relationship with her mother and Y, but I view it, on the facts of the case as known to me, as absolutely essential that these connections be reinstated as soon as possible. The recent history indicates that X has encouraged and conspired with Y to get him away from the father's care. Clearly, there are some risks for Y associated with X, but, in my estimation, these can be safeguarded by the person in charge of the home in which X is living, and the contact is taking place. That cannot be the father's residence. It could be the residence of the maternal grandfather or Mr AC, or a contact centre when time is taking place between Y and the mother.
7. It is difficult not to think that X's rights generally, and in the sense considered by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, have been significantly eroded and certainly not given effect.
8. I will make the Order sought by the mother, such that X may live with her maternal grandfather or, if she choses, her cousin Mr AC. I hope that this empowers X to come back to her family, safe in the knowledge that the Police are there to help her and will reunite her with her mother's family if she presents herself to them.
9. It is in the best interests of X that her voice be listened to, that she be empowered to return to her family, and that her whereabouts be known. She deserves to have the warmth and resources of her family available to her.
10. If X wishes to be heard on the appointment of an ICL for herself as separate to Y, she may do so.

1. Regarding Y, the expert evidence is that he misses his sister and is worried about her. Ms AV gave evidence, which I accept, that he should not be denied access to his mother pursuant to the original order just because X has not been subject to the moratorium with him. As she says:

...by having [Y] therapeutic support and reintroduction to his mother dependent on [X's] compliance with Orders, [Y] is effectively being prevented from contact with a much-loved parent for an indeterminate period. How long should [Y] be expected to wait for therapeutic support or to spend time with his mother? What happens if [X] continues to refuse to live with Mr [Levitt] or to engage in family therapy? By linking these two factors, Mr [Levitt] proposal runs the risk that [Y] will once again, be in a situation where he maintains a relationship with only one of his parents.

1. Y's safety will be best promoted by him being permitted to see and have a meaningful relationship with those about whom he cares most. My impression is that would be X and then the mother. It appears that Y is currently safe from physical harm in the father's home but that it is an emotionally abusive or neglectful environment. Y does not perceive that his emotional needs matter or are being catered for and in this respect, I refer to the report from DFFH which says that Y has "reported shutting down when feeling sad and overcome by not seeing his mother and sister, and more so not knowing if [X] is well and safe" and has "resorted to not ask for anything other than what is being provided.". Y is a neurodivergent child of 12 years of age. However, he has views which he is capable of expressing but which at least DFFH have assessed have not been listened to. I have no doubt that Y wants to see his sister in order to be assured that she is safe, and would also like to see his mother.
2. The final order was explained to Y as allowing him to see his mother on a supervised basis at the expiration of 16 weeks. The father's application to suspend his entitlement to supervised time with his mother is contrary to what Y would have thought the Orders provided for. His faith in the orders stands to be compromised the longer he is prevented from seeing his mother. I am at a loss to know how a therapist, chosen by the father, can legitimately hold a view that Y cannot get therapy until X returns and can participate in the therapy. As it is, the recommendation of the Court Child Expert is that there should be no therapy for Y unless he appears to be in acute need or requests it. The parents have pathologized the children in preference to developing and maintaining some insight into their own behaviour.
3. The mother's capacity to parent is much more favourably assessed by DFFH than it has been by Justice Wilson after hearing the evidence of the numerous experts that gave evidence in the case before him. Wilson J found the mother to represent an unacceptable risk of harm to both children whereas "Child Protection do not assess that [X] and [Y] were placed at an unacceptable risk of harm in their mother's care". From my vantage point, I assess the benefit to Y of being able to have a relationship with both parents and X as not only important but absolutely essential.
4. Y's time with the mother is to remain supervised per the Orders of Justice Wilson. However, if X wishes to attend professionally supervised time with her mother and Y she should be permitted to do so. Otherwise, time between Y and X can take place in either the home of the maternal grandfather or Mr AC between the hours of 8am and 9pm provided that they are supervised by either the maternal grandfather or Mr AC. The purpose of the supervision is not to interfere with the children but to ensure that they do not abscond together and place themselves back in an intolerable situation.
5. Otherwise, the orders with respect to Y are in full force and effect. He will stay living with his father and have supervised contact with his mother.

1. The matter will return to Court on 19 January 2026. I hope that X's whereabouts are known by then. I will make an Order that X may be provided with a copy and read this decision.
2. The father's application for the extension of the moratorium is dismissed.
3. I suspect that some of the parties are wondering why, after a hearing of 22 days, the orders made by Wilson J are not being enforced in relation to X. That is because, with X's disappearance and the dislocation of Y's relationship with X, the goalposts have moved. The best interests of X and Y remain the paramount considerations; it is just that the bests interests dictate a different outcome at this point in time.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and three (103) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Bennett.

[1] See e.g. https://www.merriam-webster.com/slang/mid.

[2] Todorov & Levitt [2025] FedCFamC1F 383 [148], [168] and [170(e)].

[3] Goode and Goode (2006) FLC 93-286.